I tried to be constructive, but I honestly couldn't find a single good thing about this. The execution was poor, and the entire idea of making a 'framework' out of boxes with background colors is ridiculous.
I do apologize for the harshness, especially if it offended people, and I'm all for trying new things, but something like this should absolutely not be up on the popular page of hacker news. This is an amateur attempt at a framework that was very poorly done. Is that honestly deserving of more than 100 upvotes?
That said, the author did put work into something, document it, and share it freely with the community - and for that reason, I'd rather not see someone hurt their feelings calling their work an 'abomination.'
I just think with a slightly different tone you could have made the same point in a way that would show the OP some brutal honesty but without discouraging them.
This is what deprecated means. You can't just remove an API that's existed for years and scripts may depend on without giving them time to adapt. This shows a warning when it's used so it's clear which scripts should be changed.
Come on, don't reject it so flippantly. Sure, for the case of a woman getting married and taking a new last name, I doubt it's that big of a deal - you can change your name for future commits, but your old name will exist for historical commits. However, there _are_ cases where you might not want your former name around (transgender, or even something like privacy / witness protection). Right now, these folk are being sort of excluded (however inadvertently) and it's worth discussing ways to fix that.